History Channel' Universe Series - What went wrong?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the perceived decline in quality of the History Channel's Universe Series, with participants expressing frustration over its simplification of scientific content and a lack of mathematical rigor. The scope includes critiques of television programming related to science, viewer expectations, and the impact of content on public understanding of science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express disappointment that the Universe Series has become overly simplified, focusing more on visuals than on scientific accuracy.
  • Others suggest that if viewers desire more mathematical content, they should seek out books rather than expect it from television programs.
  • A few participants criticize the overall quality of the History Channel's programming, comparing it unfavorably to other channels and suggesting it contributes to misinformation.
  • There are mentions of other shows that participants enjoy, such as Nova and MythBusters, with some expressing a desire for more depth in scientific explanations.
  • Some participants note the trend of recap segments in shows, arguing that it detracts from the viewing experience and reduces the amount of actual content presented.
  • There is a discussion about the balance between entertainment and educational content in science programming, with some arguing that more math would alienate average viewers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the effectiveness and purpose of the Universe Series and similar programming. While some advocate for more rigorous scientific content, others believe that the current format is appropriate for its intended audience. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to science communication in television.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of dissatisfaction with the programming, highlighting issues such as the frequency of recaps and the perceived dumbing down of content. There is also mention of the influence of viewer preferences on programming decisions, suggesting a complex relationship between audience demand and educational value.

earamsey
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
History Channel' Universe Series -- What went wrong?

I loved watching History Channels Universe Series but as of late it appears to be on the level of a moron. Why they dumb it down to this extreme? I'm insulted and stopped watching it. Can you guys help me complain send them email so they talk about more math and equations and stop simplifying to the point it is incorrect or makes no damn sense!

Currently, it's more about pretty colorized b&w telescope pictures and science fiction explanations.
 
Science news on Phys.org


This is the same channel that has:

UFO Hunters
MysteryQuest
MonsterQuest
Nostradamus Effect
 


Oh it is? I didn't know it had degraded so far down. I don't watch much tv and when I do I seek out science programs. Nova is what I usually watch but in my area it's switched to HD format and I don't have HD TV because it's too expensive just to watch a few shows.
 


I don't understand your complaint here.

If you want to learn more about the math and equations behind the science, turn off the TV and open a book. That's not what this program is for.
 


Watch Family Guy's "Cosmos for Red-Necks"

Hello, I am Carl Sagan. Scientists have determined that the universe is [... hundreds and hundreds...] of years old and that dinosaur bones have been buried in the ground by [...Jesus...]
 


Someday when there are 10,000 channels, there might even be one devoted to, not so pop, physics and cosmology (and even *gasp*, mathematics) ...
 


DaveC426913 said:
Watch Family Guy's "Cosmos for Red-Necks"

Hello, I am Carl Sagan. Scientists have determined that the universe is [... hundreds and hundreds...] of years old and that dinosaur bones have been buried in the ground by [...Jesus...]

Hahaha! Oh man that is great! I'd never seen/heard that before, but I can imagine it perfectly
 




It's great
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


Nabeshin said:
Hahaha! Oh man that is great! I'd never seen/heard that before, but I can imagine it perfectly

I don't get it. Could you explain?
 
  • #11


Nabeshin said:
I don't understand your complaint here.

If you want to learn more about the math and equations behind the science, turn off the TV and open a book. That's not what this program is for.

Like Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, who said I don't read? Just that I use to enjoy the series ..
 
  • #12


DavidSnider said:
This is the same channel that has:

UFO Hunters
MysteryQuest
MonsterQuest

And MapQuest. Don't forget MapQuest.

Seriously,
History channel is second only to the travel channel for shows made of utter garbage. It's doing more than dumbing-down; it's building this immense scaffolding of wrongness that will mutate the thinking capabilities of its viewers. Where dumbing-down is only "taking away" facts and logic, this crap is "putting in replacements" for facts and logic that cause people to go around being authoritatively stupid.
 
  • #13


Chi Meson said:
Seriously,
History channel is second only to the travel channel for shows made of utter garbage. It's doing more than dumbing-down; it's building this immense scaffolding of wrongness that will mutate the thinking capabilities of its viewers. Where dumbing-down is only "taking away" facts and logic, this crap is "putting in replacements" for facts and logic that cause people to go around being authoritatively stupid.

The real scary thing is that it is not they who are driving the content; it is the viewing public that's driving the content. TV stations show what people will watch or they die.
 
  • #14


Can you guys help me complain send them email so they talk about more math and equations and stop simplifying to the point it is incorrect or makes no damn sense!
They want to cater to the average viewer, and nothing alienates the average viewer faster than math equations.
 
  • #15


I despise any show that recaps the entire show up to the point you are watching after every commercial break.

"Lets take 25 minutes worth of info and spread it out over an hour."

Its like punishing the people who took the time to actually watch the entire show.
 
  • #16


Pattonias said:
I despise any show that recaps the entire show up to the point you are watching after every commercial break.

"Lets take 25 minutes worth of info and spread it out over an hour."

Its like punishing the people who took the time to actually watch the entire show.

I have been toying with the idea of taking a few sample shows and charting exactly how much real footage it contains versus "recap". It used to be that a half hour show was only 22 minutes after commercials but I think it's down to, like, 6 minutes.
 
  • #17


How many people here can spend several hours happily watching "How it's made" episodes?

"Oh, that's how shoelaces are made."

"Oh, that's how industrial cable is made."

You feel like such a loser at the end of the marathon. Don't even get me started on Modern Marvels and Extreme Engineering.

I also really like Dirty Jobs, Mike Rowe is probably one of my favorite people on television.
 
  • #18


Pattonias said:
How many people here can spend several hours happily watching "How it's made" episodes?
Well, maybe not several hours but I do enjoy the show. Seen most of the eps.
 
  • #19


DaveC426913 said:
I have been toying with the idea of taking a few sample shows and charting exactly how much real footage it contains versus "recap". It used to be that a half hour show was only 22 minutes after commercials but I think it's down to, like, 6 minutes.

MythBusters is the worst offender in this category. Instead of doing recaps, how about once and a while saying how you could have busted the myth on the back of an envelope?
 
  • #20


DavidSnider said:
MythBusters is the worst offender in this category. Instead of doing recaps,
True but...


how about once and a while saying how you could have busted the myth on the back of an envelope?[/QUOTE]
Well, the whole point of the show is to see it busted, manifestly. It is the answer to the problem of: "Look, I proved it on paper. Now just trust me."
 
  • #21


DaveC426913 said:
True but...
how about once and a while saying how you could have busted the myth on the back of an envelope?
Well, the whole point of the show is to see it busted, manifestly. It is the answer to the problem of: "Look, I proved it on paper. Now just trust me."

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just saying that there is a lot of content that could be used as a supplement to the physical experiment that would be better than filling up time with recaps. It's also a good opportunity to show why theory and practice don't always line up.

One of the shows that I think gets it right is "Good Eats".
 
Last edited:
  • #22


DavidSnider said:
Oh, I totally agree. I'm just saying that there is a lot of content that could be used as a supplement to the physical experiment that would be better than filling up time with recaps. It's also a good opportunity to show why theory and practice don't always line up.

One of the shows that I think gets it right is "Good Eats".

Mythbusters is one of the truest shows on TV, but sometimes they do need some filler. ANd has been stated, they have the capability to "do the math," but they would lose 80% of their audience as soon as the pen came out. I have some students in a class that are the lowest of the low in terms of capabilities and motivation. They pay attention to the Mythbusters, and I can actually use some episodes to actually teach them some stuff.

Give them love, bro.EDIT:
no I never say that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K